HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-12 Park Board Minutes1
MINUTES
OF THE MEETING OF THE
PARK BOARD
HELD AT CITY HALL
June 12, 2012
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Steel called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm
II. ROLLCALL
Answering roll call were Members Dan Peterson, Jacobson, Gieseke, Steel, Cella, Jones, Kathryn
Peterson
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Cella, approving the meeting agenda.
Ayes: Members Dan Peterson, Jacobson, Gieseke, Steel, Cella, Jones, Kathryn Peterson
Motion Carried
IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA
Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Member Gieseke approving the consent
agenda as follows:
IV.A. Approval of Minutes – Regular Meeting of Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Ayes: Members Dan Peterson, Jacobson, Gieseke, Steel, Cella, Jones, Kathryn Peterson
Motion Carried
V. COMMUNITY COMMENT
None
VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
VI.A. Edinborough Park Study Recommendations
Ann Kattreh (Parks and Recreation Assistant Director), Eric Roggeman (Finance Assistant Director) and
Susan Faus (Sr. Recreation Facility Manager of Edinborough Park) gave a presentation to the Park
Board on the Edinborough Park Study.
Ms. Kattreh asked Brad Gray, a board member from the Edina Swim Club, to talk a little bit about the
partnership that is being proposed. Brad Gray, 6005 Girard Ave. So., indicated that he has been asked to
re-emphasize their portion of the recommendation related to the additional funds the Edina Swim Club
(ESC) would generate. Mr. Gray explained that one of the big issues for the ESC is that they don’t have
a “home” pool; they rent space in a variety of locations including the pools at South View and Valley
View Middle Schools. He noted that they spend the majority of their pool facility money in other
communities outside of Edina simply because of the space and the time that is needed. He noted this
opportunity to partner with Edinborough would allow them to have a “home” pool for their age 12 and
under swimmers which is the largest portion of their club. It would give these swimmers a primary
place to swim on a regular basis to prepare for their competitions year around and would provide a
consistent environment for them. He noted that, in addition, it also provides an outstanding opportunity
for the parents and siblings to have someplace to go during the lengthy practices.
Mr. Gray pointed out that their community involvement would also increase the capability for the pool
to be viable for other community activities because it will be open and it will also give the ESC
opportunities to partner with Parks and Recreation to potentially develop additional programming that is
currently not available. He pointed out that currently the ESC spends approximately $4,700 a year of
their budget at Edinborough pool and to increase that to $53,000 a year is very significant. He explained
2
that the commitment they are making for their initial term is a very long term. He noted that it’s binding
for the first several years of the contract, which was shown in the financial projections, and they have
every expectation to increase their potential over time. He noted that it also provides an opportunity as a
swim club to have a higher profile within the City as well as provide a higher profile for others that
come to the ESC which would also help them with their residency requirements for their club as well as
attract the younger swimmers that are harder to reach that are at the park playing before they reach the
age of joining the ESC. It’s really a win/win for the City and the ESC.
Member Gieseke indicated Ms. Kattreh had talked about the association dues sun setting and what they
would lose over time in those revenues and asked if they could somehow replace some of the revenues
by having season passes offered to the same residents because that would essentially replace it and
therefore it would be equivalent. Ms. Kattreh replied it is certainly a possibility that they could replace
some of those revenues but to think they could replace the majority of those revenues would not be
correct at this point because they feel it would be too difficult to estimate accurately how much they
could generate from their neighbors for daily user fees or season passes. She commented that they have
had discussions with their neighbors about potentially voluntarily extending their association fees and is
something that as staff they are pursuing.
Member Gieseke made a suggestion of maybe looking at an option of tying in the Aquatic Center season
pass with Edinborough for an additional cost and people could maybe use the indoor pool for a few extra
months. Member Kattreh replied that is a great idea and right now they have a great opportunity with
Susan Faus being the manager of both the Aquatic Center and Edinborough Park to look at some
partnering.
Member Jones asked about the timing needs for the ESC and asked how it can remain open to the
residents of Edina. Ms. Kattreh explained that it is their recommendation that they make all of these
changes effective this year and that they would increase the pool time for the ESC starting in September.
She noted the times they’ve been working with the ESC is from 3:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday and from 7:00 am to 10:00 am on Saturdays. Therefore, the impact would be to the lap
swimmers this fall and some open swim times but it is their opinion that these are not heavily used times
and would be much better used by the ESC.
Member Jones commented that the pool is kept fairly warm and wondered if they would continue to
keep it warm. Ms. Kattreh responded they have had a lot of discussions about that and they will keep it
the same; 83 degrees with the air temperature at 84 degrees, they are very sensitive to the Community
Education and some of their classes that use the pool and the ESC is willing to work with them on the
pool temperature.
Member Jones indicated that she likes the concept of the walking track and asked why that is not part of
Plan A. Ms. Kattreh replied the reason it is not included in Plan A is because part of the ESC proposal
to them is that they use the track and fitness facilities as a dry land training facility for their athletes;
which there is not a lot of space. She explained that if they do the art walk option they would
essentially be eliminating the south side of the track from being used as a fitness opportunity and say the
ESC wants to take 15 to 20 athletes up there at any time it’s really going to tax the size of that space;
however, it’s certainly something they could discuss. Member Jones asked if the fitness facilities would
be closed from 3:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday to which Ms. Kattreh replied no, it would
remain open to the public and it would be a shared use with the ESC.
Member Kathryn Peterson pointed out that when they talk about possible renewals or passes from the
association and hotel as potential revenue it’s important to note that finances would only come into play
with Option A because if there isn’t a pool then there is nothing there. Ms. Kattreh commented that Ms.
Faus and she did meet with the Marriott Hotel, Edina Park Plaza and Corporate East and they had those
exact discussions. She noted that one of their neighbors stated that they didn’t really care about the pool;
3
it was the track that they were most concerned about. She noted one of the other neighbors mentioned
that they really liked the option of having both but that the track was important to them as well.
Therefore, she agrees the potential for renegotiating is much higher with the pool.
Member Jones commented that Edinborough Park is a really pretty park and she wants to make sure they
don’t ruin the experience as they try to cut costs. She noted she agrees there are several trees that are
overgrown and she is trying to sort through what the proposal is with the trees. She asked if where all of
the current tall trees are will those areas be filled in or are there going to be midsized or tall plants put in.
She commented that she is just trying to get a sense for how the place will feel once the proposals have
been put in. Ms. Kattreh replied that essentially anywhere there are trees in the walkway they propose to
remove them. In addition, where there are ficus trees that are growing up really tall in the entrances as
well as the lower level that are growing up to the ceiling will be eliminated as well. She added there are
some tall ficus trees that she thinks they could let grow and see how they do with the new lighting
conditions. She indicated they also have a variety of plants that are in the 6’ to 8’ range and it certainly
would be their goal to try to have some taller plants; not necessarily tree size, because they need
different lighting and maintenance requirements. Ms. Kattreh stated that they would propose to remove
38 of the large trees as well as thin out some of the lower plant beds to provide a more updated
landscape look. She thinks they should be able to provide a very unique and beautiful environment just
using a different type of vegetation. Ms. Kattreh commented another thing worth spelling out is the
potential cost savings in terms of an energy retrofit; they would save $40,000 in just the lighting retrofit
and another $80,000 in staffing costs.
Member Jones asked once the grotto area is filled in what is the plan for potential uses for that space.
Ms. Kattreh replied first they could partner with the Edina Art Center and provide gallery space for their
local artists. She noted they would potentially also have the ability to set up a birthday party space or
maybe even an art class in the more wide open area. She added that they would also level off that space
to make it more handicapped accessible as well as provide a much larger space for people to mingle.
Member Jones indicated that one of the prior scenarios they looked at was having catering and party
rentals and asked why that is not a feature here. Ms. Kattreh responded it was eliminated because the
two other proposals actually provide them a better cost recovery percentage.
Member Dan Peterson asked regarding the user fees of the pool with a lot of letters and emails of people
wanting to keep the pool why did the consultants say get rid of it, how did that happen? Ms. Kattreh
replied the main answer for that is their partnership with the ESC because that was a discussion that just
happened in the last month or two. She indicated that when the consultants looked at the fitness
facilities they looked at their current facilities and what it would cost to bring their facilities up to a
health club standard and they didn’t feel the return on the investment was good enough. She added that
without the commitment from the ESC she is not sure the pool option would be viable.
Member Dan Peterson asked regarding the rollover fees and the law that was passed the legislature was
not just to get at Edina; it was something else and that happened to affect us; is that correct? Ms. Kattreh
replied that is correct, it happened back in the 1980s and it was challenged and the law was upheld.
Member Dan Peterson asked Ms. Kattreh if all of this happens what is her best guess on cost recovery
from renting, low to mid 70s or will it get up to 80% or 85%. Ms. Kattreh replied if they were to
maintain their association fees at the level that they are to date yes, she thinks it would be safe to say that
they would be in the low to mid 80s. Ms. Kattreh asked Mr. Roggeman if he would concur to which he
replied yes. Ms. Kattreh noted they would hope that they would be able to motivate some of their
association members to potentially voluntarily renew and that would put their percentage somewhere
between the low 70s to the low 80s. Member Dan Peterson asked but the law would not restrict the City
from renegotiating and have a new 15, 25 or 30 year fee contract to use the facilities, right. Ms. Kattreh
replied that they cannot require it but if they voluntarily do it then that would be acceptable. She noted
4
that they did have the City Attorney at the time these contracts were written give us his opinion and he
stated that we would not be able to require the renewal of that 30 year commitment. Member Dan
Peterson asked without the fee money of course the individual user fees go up dramatically. Ms. Kattreh
replied that’s correct, she thinks their user fees right now with the increase that they are proposing are
about as high as they could make them.
Arnie Bigbee, 7621 Edinborough Way, noted that Edinborough Park is a real gem in this community,
it’s a unique result of public/private partnership and he thinks it was ingenious of how in the past they
put this together. He indicated that he agrees with Member Jones that it would be a real shame to have
that lost as a community resource. He noted that in marketing a property like this it is important to find
all of the values and purposes and he thinks the ESC looks like a tremendous value to our community.
He noted another thing Edina has committed to do is be a “Do Town” City and he doesn’t see a lot of
Edina City employees at the fitness center when he is there and he doesn’t know what kind of marketing
efforts have been made to find out why employees don’t use it. He indicated that he heard that there is
an incentive for employees to be able to use that facility but they are not using it. It is the kind of
facility, equipment, track and all of those things that would put this park into an investment mode, not an
expense because the Human Resources we have for the City is probably one the largest resources that we
fund every year. He commented that if you change those habits with employee health and wellness over
the long term this is an opportunity for our community to be a leader again. They’ve got a facility that
supports that and it would be a real shame from his perspective to see that changed into something else
that wouldn’t provide that opportunity for their population.
Ryan Siemers, 7004 Lynmar Lane, indicated that he has lived at Edinborough Park off and on since
1986 when it was built. He noted that for Option C that includes the walking trail with the ESC asked if
the hours that the ESC would require to use that track be inhibitive of the residents of Edinborough also
using the track if not the pool. He stated there is a mixed population at Edinborough to which everyone
would benefit from being able to use the pool during hours where kids do not have to be tucked into bed.
He commented if they don’t need to use the track during the entire peak time after hours or after work
hours from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. if that might also be an opportunity to have an hour or two everyday
where that becomes a walking trail or an art walk. He stated there was a lot of talk about a number of
revenue generating opportunities and he thinks you are kind of missing a few that might be worth
exploring. The City should also look at opportunities for advertising from local businesses that target
the family demographic and the folks that actually use the park such as rotating electronic signs that
could be placed at the entrances or somewhat discreet print graphics that could be put on the glass wall
between the pool and the kid area. He noted that they could also look at corporate sponsorships since
this has been a public/private space that has been funded in the past and so why not continue that kind of
opportunity in the future. He also wonders how many members of the ESC are projected for daily use
on the track because we already know it’s a confined space so how many people are going to feel
comfortable in it together. He added that they do own a unit 7615 Edinborough Way, #4302.
Evelyn Raedler, Bloomington resident, indicated that Edinborough Park is not just for Edina people;
there are people that come from all of the other surrounding areas so it’s important to a lot people not
just Edina. She noted that in all of the discussion it was just dollars, dollars and dollars and nothing was
said about the health of the community particularly the older people who want to continue an active life.
Edinborough and the pool are very, very important to them and that is why there are so many of them
here tonight. She commented one clarification she would like to have is if the ESC were to use the pool
in the evening what would happen to the evening water aerobics classes because there is an important
constituency that has been going to the water aerobics classes for years and years and years and asked
would that be cut out. She commented if you are serious about keeping the pool and partnering with
Blue Cross Blue Shield in the “Do Town” program then one of the best ways to get people to groove
your body every day is to reach out to a population that wants to live, work and play healthier. She
added that a very important segment of that population lives within easy driving distance of
5
Edinborough and perhaps don’t even know about it so if this plans go through, market, market, market
and you will get a lot of people to use that facility which will help pay for it.
Greg Solum, 3300 Edinborough #550, indicated he has a law office in the Edinborough Corporate
Center East and he uses the pool for approximately three miles a week. He would like to echo what has
previously been said about the health aspects of this because he thinks one of our main things about
parks is focusing on health and wellness. He stated that he realizes it’s about dollars and you have to
watch that but on the other hand there is the obesity crisis among the children and a lack of fitness
facilities available to seniors. He stated the accessibility from the condos at Edinborough to the facilities
may not make a lot of money but it’s certainly a long-term asset and long-term health benefit for all
ages. He commented that he agrees about the marketing and thinks it’s an important part of this and
thinks that may be part of why the pool may be underused and would strongly recommend Option A.
Barbara LaValleur, 7621 Edinborough Way #2110, indicated she has lived there for over eight years and
wants to make it very clear that she is for keeping the pool, the walk around and expanding it in any way
that they can to have more exercise equipment. She noted she has used the facility for eight years and
it’s a critical part of keeping her fit in her 66th year. She noted that she is also a member of the Edina Art
Board and the Edina Public Art committee so she is very pleased to hear the commitment to public art
and thinks that would add a great deal to the appeal of the space. She commented that although she
hates to see the trees go she understands the practicality of that and would be in favor of that. She
indicated one question she has is if the pool is being used by the ESC would they be using the whole
pool so there would not be any lanes open for the public at that time.
Bill Bryan, 5908 Drew Ave., noted someone commented about City employees and noted that he is a
part-time City employee and he has used the whole facility off and on since it was built for rehab. He
stated that the track, fitness equipment, pool, the whole works is a gem that the world needs to know
more about and know it’s out there. He added that he is thankful every day for that facility.
Patrick Shannon, 7622 York Ave. So., #1107, indicated that he thinks the Board would be receptive to
renewing this because it is such an asset for the residents who live there. He noted when they bought
their condo ten years ago and that was a real selling point that they could walk from his condo right to
the park with this grandchildren. It’s a beautiful park and if they have to increase the fees or something
he thinks it’s well worth it. He has been paying $15.00 a month for ten years and he thinks that is a steal
and also thinks the employees are great.
Member Cella stated that she thinks it’s important going forward that they put the highest priority
possible on renegotiating or working with the entities that pay these monthly fees to keep those ongoing
and to work out some mutually agreeable way to keep that going. It sounds like it’s important for both
the residents but certainly for the City’s bottom line as well so she thinks it’s a win/win situation.
VI.B. User Fee Policy Working Group Recommendations
Chair Steel read the mission of the User Fees Working Group “The Working Group will evaluate current
fee scales and costs associated with facility use, while also developing policy that may be currently
lacking for potential user groups”. She informed the Park Board that in reality they had to limit the
scope of their recommendations because of the magnitude of the issue that they were dealing with. They
focused on youth athletic associations because that was the main user group that City Council discussed.
Chair Steel showed the Park Board some graphs and explained that currently user fees are assessed to all
youth athletic associations that use outdoor athletic facilities or gymnasiums. She noted she included in
the Park Board packet an appendix which outlines which associations pay the user fee and what kind of
revenue they are looking at. She indicated that in 2012 they increased the per participant user fee to
$11.00 which went up from $9.00 in 2011. She pointed out on a chart the increases over the years and
found it interesting that it has barely kept up with the rate of inflation.
6
Chair Steel explained that as they were trying to evaluate what the cost is associated with the use of the
facilities by the youth athletic associations they found it was much more difficult to determine than they
thought. She pointed out that the City does not determine variable costs by athletic associations and so
the two things they looked at were field maintenance and rink maintenance. She commented that it’s
also important to know that field maintenance includes adult athletics and some other boulevard
treatments so it is a much bigger pot of money than you would think and pointed out that it is rising at a
much faster rate than the user fees. She noted that it’s really important to emphasize that it’s hard to
determine what percentage of that maintenance cost is just related to youth athletics. Chair Steel
indicated they really hone in on that point because they were asked to compare it to other municipalities.
She noted that in the November issue of the “National Recreation Park Magazine” the data that they
received in the “Pay to Play” is where they came up with numbers for the 25th percentile median and 75th
percentile as well as they also received numbers from the City of Eden Prairie for 2010. She pointed out
that the chart actually doesn’t mean a whole lot because what they are paying for youth athletics could
be entirely different from the materials that another city is paying for so it would be like comparing
apples to oranges.
John Connolly, 7309 West Shore Drive, a member of the User Fee Working Group went over their
recommendations based on the per park participant fee. He noted that the group came to a consensus
about three things. First, they do support the practice of this and think it’s a good philosophical thing as
well as the resources that would supplement the scholarship of athletes, handicapped users, etc.
Secondly, they determined it would be very helpful in determining the costs for variance of the
maintenance costs related to the upkeep of facilities, capital improvements as well as the in-kind
donations that a lot of the associations do such as scoreboards, park improvements, etc., so those sorts of
things should be taken into consideration with each association. Finally, they recommend the per
participant fee increases take effect the following fiscal year so that the fee cannot be raised two
consecutive years in row. He explained the reason for that is some of the non-profits are on fiscal years
and do not match well with the City of Edina’s budget and therefore this gives them time to prepare and
allocate based upon their own budget and fiscal year.
Suzanne Kerwin, 5238 Hollywood Road, a member of the User Fee Working Group, talked about their
second recommendation that the existing priority use policy document also requires that the athletic
associations submit a financial supporting form that’s developed by City staff. She explained that
currently when the athletic associations submit their financial reporting there is a great variation. Some
of the associations will submit a copy of their tax return, others will submit a copy of their bank
statement and some have a whole profit and loss which is very detailed so there is a great variety to look
through all of these and try to gleam what is important for the City to know. They do recommend that
the City staff develop a financial reporting form to make it more simplified. She indicated that they also
recommend that the associations should report the percent of Edina residents participating in their
association, currently there is no formal residency reporting method that exists.
Bob McGarry, 6304 St. Johns Ave., a member of the User Fee Working Group, talked about their
recommendation regarding the youth athletic associations that use the enterprise facilities, specifically
the Edina Aquatic Center and Braemar Arena. He pointed out that recently a priority use document was
created for the Aquatic Center. He noted they are recommending that a third priority use document be
created that speaks to the arrangement at Braemar Arena and recognizes the Braemar City of Lakes
Figure Skating Club as a priority use association and also includes the Edina Hockey Association. He
indicated that athletic associations that exclusively use enterprise facilities are exempt from the per
participant user fee and residency requirements because they pay competitive hourly fees to use these
facilities. He added that the Parks and Recreation staff did review their recommendations and the
residency requirement was an area they felt did not need to be in these recommendations to which the
working group is open to taking that out.
7
Bob Kojetin, 5016 William Avenue, a member of the User Fee Working Group, talked about the
mandated guidelines the Edina Swim Club must follow with regards to the “Priority Use of the Edina
Aquatic Center”. He indicated that the Edina Swim Club and the Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating
Club are two associations that are basically individual participation sports versus team sports. He
explained that these associations pay rent for the facility they use. He noted that the User Fee Working
Group agrees with the 90% residency requirement for team sport associations and they understand that
the Edina Swim Club residency requirement should be only 75% because a lot of individuals who
participate in swimming come from a lot of different areas. He pointed out the swim clubs throughout
the metropolitan area consist of a lot of different facilities in a lot of different communities. He
explained that with the Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating Club it’s a little bit different because they
skate in maybe two or three different areas and so it’s very difficult to control. He commented that if a
good coach is in another community that family will follow that coach and travel to that particular
community so it’s very difficult for them to have 75%, 60% or 90%. He indicated that the Braemar City
of Lakes Figure Skating Club and the Edina Hockey Association pay a surcharge fee at Braemar Arena.
Mr. Kojetin noted that regarding the Tournament Policy, it really goes back to how much does it cost the
City to have full-time and part-time staff prepare fields for activities during the weekends when
tournaments are generally held. He indicated that if a tournament is a fundraiser for an athletic
association then they are expected to pay for operating expenses incurred by the City. He stated that it’s
never been a written policy but the User Fee Working Group is proposing that those costs should always
be documented as a matter of practice. They need to find out what to charge for the use of Van
Valkenburg Park or Courtney Fields. We need to know what it is going to cost the City to run that
facility for the weekend for the association’s fundraiser tournament.
Chair Steel informed the Park Board there were a few issues that they discussed at their last meeting in
trying to develop this policy. The first issue is the relationship document makes an exception to team
eligibility for the Edina Swim Club but it doesn’t have this exception for other associations that make
decisions based on the participant’s ability. The second issue is there is one athletic association per
sport; however, this isn’t true for the Edina Girls Athletic Association which has the same sports and so
just to move forward and have compliance the City Council may want to look at these issues.
Mr. Keprios pointed out he thinks the way the relationship document is written is it encourages one
association per sport but there are some minor exceptions as it was pointed out. He noted that the City
Council recently approved a new priority access document for the Edina Aquatic Center and also
changed the original Relationship Document created by the Youth Sports Task Force. The new
document makes one exception for the Edina Swim Club to abide by a 75% residency requirement. He
noted that it mentions in the User Fees Working Group recommendations not included in the exception
are the Edina Volleyball Association and the Edina Soccer Club and asked is there a reason that was
called out, do they not meet the 90% residency. Chair Steel responded that it’s not about residency, it’s
about team performance. Mr. McGarry explained they were just pointing out some verbiage that is
written in the relationship document that talks about sports being open to all participants; however, he
believes the situation with the Edina Swim Club, Edina Soccer Club and the Edina Volleyball
Association is that they have tryouts and therefore do not take everyone who wants to participate. He
noted they were just pointing out a discrepancy in a statement that was made in regards to having a
program that is open for everyone. Mr. Keprios responded they make an exception for the Edina Swim
Club in that area because the participant needs to be a competent enough swimmer before they can be a
member of the Edina Swim Club. He stated that as far as the Edina Soccer Club it’s not just open to
anyone of any talent and is considered the traveling component of soccer in Edina which is why there
are two separate associations.
Mr. Keprios asked with regards to staff monitoring and reporting tournament costs he assumes they
would like that information gathered as best they can when it comes time to approve the fees and
charges to which Chair Steel replied yes. Mr. Keprios noted that fee is separate from the per individual
8
user fee because when they do have a fundraiser tournament they pay a per field per day fee. Chair Steel
replied in talking about a tournament policy they are looking at more than just a fee that they pay but
want to know what is the staff time and everything else that goes into it. Mr. Keprios explained that as
staff they take all of that into account when they propose the fees. He noted that if Park Board wants to
get into that level of detail, there are a lot of variables that come into play and therefore some of it is
their best guess because they don’t budget it that way. He stated they can tell you pretty much what the
staff costs were for a particular tournament and it’s going to vary from one sport to the next, from one
tournament to the next and costs will also vary depending on the weather. He commented that they
would be happy to try if you feel you need that level of information although it’s going to be a little
more documentation and time for staff. Chair Steel responded that she doesn’t think it was necessarily
the feeling of the working group that they need that level of detail but rather felt that the City Council
wanted that variable cost so she would just turn it to them and let them decide the level of detail they
want.
Mr. Keprios pointed out that as they go down the road he thinks it’s important for the Park Board to
remember that a lot of these facilities are used by more than just the youth athletic associations so he
thinks it becomes debatable and an important issue of how much of the cost of that burden should be on
the shoulders of just the youth athletic associations. He noted that it’s a bit of a departure from past
practice of the fees and charges policy, for example, how much of the financial burden should fall on the
shoulders of the general public who benefit for having outdoor rinks or the times when there is no
scheduled play and it’s open to the general public.
Mr. Keprios asked if the working group gave some thought to or are suggesting that maybe it should
vary per sport as the sports differ in what it costs to provide. Chair Steel replied that they did not even
weigh that decision because they don’t have the data to support that. She stated that they support the
current practice because it’s the best thing that works with the data they have.
Mr. Connolly commented there was debate internally about this amongst them and in particular there
was one sport that used to use a school district facility that now uses park land and they were questioning
the per participant fee. He noted it’s so difficult sometimes to not make it at least a blanket policy and it
was their feeling that it was better to do it as a blanket policy. He noted that in this circumstance it was
consistent and for your staff to monitor that it was just a clear communication tool and yes, he thinks the
conclusion was they wanted it to be consistent and felt that it was the right way to go.
Mr. Kojetin indicated they had a meeting with all of the presidents of the associations and they all
seemed to agree with the same amount of money that each one of the participants would pay for each
association. They felt that $11.00 wasn’t that big of a burden because they will charge it right back to
the participant when they register. He noted that if it went up to $20 or $25 then they would be
concerned and would want to know where the money is going.
Member Cella asked the working group if they considered charging the actual hours of the gyms and
fields the associations were using because there may be one group using a facility one hour a week who
are then subsidizing the group that is using it 25 hours a week. She noted it’s very easy to count up
hours of use versus just a head count and if they actually charged per hour of use of a field or a gym and
made them pay based on that basis rather than just a per head it might increase fees. Chair Steel replied
they didn’t receive data on that so they didn’t look at hours but she thinks when they were talking about
variable costs different facilities and different fields actually have different costs so that hourly rate
would have to be variable. For example, a gym is going to be much cheaper because a soccer field is
always much more expensive to maintain. She commented that when they talked with the athletic
associations she thinks the general sentiment is this is for the kids and do we really want to be picking
the winners and losers of certain sports because kids are choosing soccer over volleyball so it’s a tricky
decision. Member Cella commented that it’s a little more complicated if they are looking at hours but it
would seem to maybe be a fairer way to do it and it may generate more revenue, she doesn’t know you
9
would have to do the numbers and figure out what your price point was for your hourly use but it’s
something to think about.
Mr. Keprios commented that’s an excellent point because when users pay for either a field or a gym it
creates an equalizer so that it becomes more fair and equitable. He explained that the per participant fee
was originally viewed to be a one-time per year per sport season fee to give the association’s priority
access to the facility. He noted that it was never intended to cover all of the costs of maintenance and
added that it certainly gets skewed such as when Member Cella pointed out that there is such a variety of
use. He indicated that this is the first year the school district is now charging for everything that they
never charged for before. He noted that maybe that’s the direction we should be heading with the City
fields, we should charge the priority access fee as they should start calling it and give some thought to
the per hour usage of fields.
Mr. Kojetin asked Mr. Keprios if the City is charging the school district for using City facilities and does
the City get charged for using school district facilities. Mr. Keprios replied the only thing the City
charges the school district for is indoor ice time at Braemar Arena. He noted that they have done
computations and it ends up being approximately a $30,000 gift that the City is giving the school district
each year. He noted it’s something they haven’t charged; it’s just been the philosophy of supporting
school sports; however, if that philosophy changes then it very well may change.
Member Jones asked the working group if they talked about their philosophy of what the fees should be
covering and were they thinking they should be covering total costs of the use of the fields. Ms. Kerwin
replied it was discussed but they did not come to any consensus on that issue. She noted the per
participant fee generates a lot of money for the City to keep the park facilities used by the athletic
associations going and they agree it’s a good thing. She stated that they weren’t able to get at the
specific costs per sport and they didn’t get the hours but that is an interesting way to look at it.
Ms. Kerwin pointed out that in their discussions with the athletic associations presidents they seemed
very comfortable with the current system because it is easy and that is probably why it started out that
way. She noted that she could see a whole can of worms opening up to change it; therefore, they didn’t
want to recommend any changes without having the hard data which isn’t there in the budget right now.
She indicated that one thing they did hear was while the youth athletic association fees don’t cover the
total costs of what the associations are getting using the facilities and the upkeep and maintenance of
those there are a lot of volunteer hours that go into these organizations and they don’t have a hard dollar
figure for all of the volunteer hours that are able to provide these services to the community.
Member Jones indicated that a lot of the recommendations are for trying to gather data but she doesn’t
want staff to gather data if they don’t have a philosophy of what it is they are going to do with that data.
She noted once they know how much these might cost would you recommend that the associations ought
to be paying their total cost or a certain percentage because they are going to be setting policy. Chair
Steel responded that she thinks the reason you want this specific data is because of the interest of the
City Council, they wanted them to look at the variable costs so they are saying well you can’t look at the
variable costs until you have the data on it and if you want the data on it you have to go collect it. She
commented that she doesn’t know what the feeling of the Park Board is on variable costs but feels they
were kind of driven by the City Council and since we are advisory they expressed interest in that.
Member Jones asked the working group if they looked into the League of Women Voters study on
private use of public facilities to which Ms. Kerwin replied yes. Member Jones asked was the working
group comfortable with the study or is there a reason why this wasn’t part of the Park Board’s
background material. Chair Steel replied that she thinks the League Study is much more comprehensive
than the scope of their working group and they had a lot of trouble just getting the data they wanted
because of the way the City reports information.
10
Mr. Connolly pointed out that you get into a lot of variables with the usage especially in fields because
baseball takes up a little more dressing than a soccer field and there are other sports that use the facility
that don’t beat a field up as much as other sports so there is just no way to determine how much it takes.
Member Jones indicated that she appreciates Member Cella’s comment about the per hour and noted that
is what they are currently doing with the Edina Aquatic Center and Braemar Arena. She noted another
thing she would like to see as part of the recommendation going to the City Council would be that they
need to try to figure out these figures and one of the reasons for that is because she thinks there is a
perception that what they are paying covers the full cost of maintenance and sometimes the youth
athletic associations feel as if they are being charged more than other people because they are registering
for a sport and not just paying taxes. She commented that she would be looking for something in
writing, if they are going to continue with the user fee, when they register that states so much is going to
the City to cover a certain percentage of the sport and this way it would be very clear that it may not be
100%. She noted that she thinks from the League of Women Voters study it looks like it might be 25%
of the cost of the sport to the City. She stated she thinks this would then give the people a feeling for
where they stand and it would be a little more transparent so that is why she would actually collect the
data. Chair Steel replied she thinks that is a great point but it may be a little difficult to individually say
this is your percentage; however, when they look at fees and charges they have an opportunity to inform
the public of what this cost is covering. Therefore, if they can collect this data they can be clearer.
Chair Steel stated she really enjoyed meeting with the association representatives and thinks there should
be more dialog and build on those relationships because they are volunteers. She noted there is a lot to
learn and the working group had to wrap their heads around this model and the nuances and so she
thinks they can do a better job of educating the associations and other residents.
Member Kathryn Peterson commented under 1C it says “fees may not be raised two consecutive years in
a row” and asked if that was based on specific feedback from the associations. She stated that she has
been on athletic association boards and she thinks if it’s a $1.00 or $2.00 increase that two years in a row
isn’t a big deal but if you were talking about $10.00 or $20.00 that would be huge; however, if it’s a
nominal increase it’s hard for her to imagine that doing that two years in a row would be a hardship. Mr.
Connolly responded that it’s not a hardship but from a budgeting standpoint a lot of these associations
register their athletes months in advance so when they budget it lines up with their fiscal year and at least
they can estimate and make a better decision businesswise based upon if they know what that fee is
going to be and that was their consensus going forward.
Member Kathryn Peterson suggested including tournament information in the financial reporting, the
revenues and expenses of tournaments. She pointed out regarding the 90% residency, what she found
challenging when she was on the Edina Baseball Board is not because baseball selects kids from outside
of Edina but they do have a policy of allowing kids to play both who are residents of Edina and who go
to school in Edina which includes OLG, Calvin Christian as well as kids who go to Edina High School
through open enrollment. She noted that open enrollment has kind of created a little bit of a challenge
around that and where you would think it would be really a slam dunk to get that 90% baseball probably
runs around 92% to 93% it’s lower than what you would think because of open enrollment. Mr. Keprios
responded that he thinks the intent was that for those who are enrolled in Edina schools that are non-
residents through open enrollment would qualify as a resident when they are doing the tabulation. It’s
just those that don’t go to a school in Edina and don’t live in Edina that would qualify as a non-resident.
Member Cella commented that as she understands the 90% residency requirement is that it is to give you
a priority use of fields and facilities and now the Edina Swim Club has a 75% residency requirement
because they are getting priority use of the pool space so the only one that doesn’t have a residency
requirement is the Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating Club. She asked if they get priority usage of
ice time. Mr. Keprios replied currently there is no access to the Braemar Arena facility policy in place.
He explained what they are recommending is that you not have a residency requirement for that group
but that would be contrary to what the City Council recently passed for the Edina Aquatic Center. He
11
noted the Figure Skating Club is significantly different than the Edina Swim Club because less than 30%
are residents. Member Cella asked but they still get a priority usage of ice time because it seems to her
that the residency is so that you are standing in a better place in line to get time and space; however, if
they are not in a better place in line then she can understand why there would be no requirement. She
noted that they would have to think about why only one club doesn’t have to follow the rules of
everybody else if, in fact, they are getting a better place in line but if they are not then there is no reason
for it. Mr. Keprios responded there really hasn’t been a need to establish a policy out there they have
just been following what is the best business practice to sell all of the ice and they’ve been a wonderful
customer for many, many years and they’ve evolved to a lesser and lesser percentage of residents. He
commented that when they operate it like a business it’s a fine line between what is good public policy
and what’s best business practice.
Chair Steel noted that 3B of the working group’s recommendation states “We recommend that
associations that exclusively use enterprise facilities are exempt from the per participant user fee and
residency requirements, because they pay competitive hourly fees to use these facilities”. She stated the
Edina Swim Club does not pay a per participant user fee so it is their feeling to make this across the
board for enterprise facilities that is your qualifier and then they don’t have residency requirements. The
reason she believes they wanted to create a Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating Club document that
cited them as a priority user is because there is a history there, there is an established relationship and
other associations spoke well of them so she thinks they are trying to find somewhere in between to
work with the different characteristics of each association.
Member Jones indicated she thinks the City Council just passed something on the Hornet’s Nest where
they would be charged an additional user fee and asked how the working group’s recommendation fits in
with that. Chair Steel replied it doesn’t, they were trying to create a recommendation as City Council
was making their own so it does not. Member Jones asked if the working group is continuing to
recommend that. Chair Steel replied yes and if the Park Board takes issue with one of the specific
recommendations they can change that, otherwise City Council can address it with the understanding
that things have changed. Member Jones replied regarding enterprise facilities it would be nice to have
the flexibility to insert a user fee if they need to make capital improvements as they are doing with the
Hornet’s Nest so she would recommend they take that out of “3B”. Chair Steel responded there is no
reason you can’t assess a user fee, it’s just you can’t assess the per participant user fee, so that shouldn’t
affect it. Member Jones stated for example for the Hornet’s Nest they were recommending not an
increase in the user fee, that’s what you are referring, we recommended a per participant user fee.
Member Cella stated she believes Member Jones is correct that in the documents it states both the
Hockey Association and the Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating Club both had to pay $20.00 a head
fee for a number of years as part of the contributing to the capital renovations for Braemar Arena. Chair
Steel replied she would just be a stickler and not say that $22.00 per head is a per participant user fee
because when the Park Board approves the per participant fee it’s the same dollar amount for every
association and so that is how she would deal with that. Member Kathryn Peterson noted that she thinks
it’s more like a capital improvement surcharge and that she agrees with Chair Steel, it’s similar but
different than what is in here because it’s not applied across the board.
Mr. Keprios pointed out that you are kind of mixing your tasks. The $15.00 per participant surcharge
fee that was charged the Braemar City of Lakes Figure Skating Club and the Edina Hockey Association
was used to convert the Braemar Pavilion into what is now the East Arena. There were several capital
improvements needed so the two groups agreed to pay $15.00 per player surcharge for the life of the
bonds. When those bonds got paid off, before they recently renovated the West Arena, the $15.00
surcharge fee ended when the bonds were paid off. Mr. Keprios noted that now with the advent of the
Hornet’s Nest they are taking the same approach in that they need some help paying for these bonds.
The Park Board agreed that would be an appropriate revenue source that will end when those bonds are
paid off so therefore it is not an access fee that you’ve really set off to study.
12
Mr. Keprios commented that the fees and charges discussion is an important one and it’s one that you
can easily get off on tangents and quickly become overwhelming. Therefore, he would recommend you
focus on just the one fee that you have chosen to study and carry this on to the next meeting.
Chair Steel made a motion, seconded by Member Gieseke, to table those recommendations until
the next meeting and they can discuss it then.
Ayes: Members Dan Peterson, Jacobson, Gieseke, Steel, Cella, Jones, Kathryn Peterson
Motion Carried
VI.C. Sports Dome Working Group Phase II
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that Member Jones has informed him that he has misnamed the
group and by their new bylaw rules that were approved by the City Council they are actually a
“Committee” so they need to be sure to change the name. He stated that he knows Member Deeds is
willing to serve on the reconvening of this committee and that all members of the Sports Dome
Committee are Park Board members along with Ms. Kattreh. He informed the Park Board that they have
learned that the proposed site south of the South Metro Training Facility is not financially feasible, there
is room but it’s going to be close to a two million dollar proposition just for site development. He noted
they believe there is a much more affordable option out there and the City Council would like the
committee to reconvene and review a couple of sites that staff would like to propose. Mr. Keprios asked
for a list of the names of the Park Board members on the committee to which it was noted: Members
Deeds, Jones, Jacobson, Gieseke, Hulbert and Ann Kattreh.
Member Dan Peterson made a motion, seconded by Chair Steel, approval of the Sports Dome
Committee as named.
Ayes: Members Dan Peterson, Jacobson, Gieseke, Steel, Cella, Jones, Kathryn Peterson
Motion Carried
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that handed out tonight is hard copies of the up-to-date emails
including something from Skip Reebie that was dropped off at City Hall with regards to Edinborough
Park. There is also some information from “First Athlete” on their training facility that they wanted the
Park Board to have.
VIII. CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Chair Steel gave the Park Board an update on the self-assessment, she completed compiling it and
printing it although left it at home so she will email to Mr. Keprios to forward on to the Park Board. She
noted that she is going to work with Mr. Keprios and Karen Kurt, Assistant City Manager, to put some
sort of a retreat together to address some of the different things that came up in the self-assessment.
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board as he mentioned earlier that City Council has already voted to
approve that the Golf Dome be rebuilt in its exact same location. He noted he was asked about the effect
of the loss of the Golf Dome enterprise revenues and stated that the Golf Dome loss of business was
covered by insurance because they have business interruption insurance. He noted they are still not sure
what that is going to be but he thinks in the end they may do even better than they did last year. He
noted that another good reason to put the dome back in its current location is because we have excellent
coverage and if they were to move it they would have to pay for new footings and any site restorations
that would need to be done. He commented that under the current policy the insurance company will
pay for pretty much the entire replacement if it stays on site including paying for additional new building
code required expenses that kick into place that may not have been there when it was first built so it’s all
good news.
13
Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the Hornet’s Nest is on an extremely fast track. The proposal
and the attorneys have worked it out between the “Drive for the Hive” and our City attorney. He noted
that it’s going to be a little bit of a design build kind of approach but they still are going through the
public bidding process. Their goal is to have a public hearing at the City Council meeting on July 17th to
approve the Memorandum of Understanding to approve the project and to approve bids. They hope to
have everything in place and all of their money raised so they can go forward with the whole proposal
shortly after that date. It is their hope to have this built and operational by Thanksgiving so things are
moving along very fast. He pointed out that if they don’t meet the obligation of fundraising it will
probably be delayed.
Meeting adjourned at 9:28 pm.